>> now i asked mr. murdoch to deal with another piece of evidence the inquiry received which was a long lines that he was writing a book about hong kong. he was the last governor of hong kong. ..

when i first heard of this, when i heard it was about to hit the streets are very close, i did step in and say, don't do it. i wish to say now it was one more mistake of mine. i was clearly wrong. >> were you hoping to acquire commercial interest in china at that point? >> now. well, it's a huge matter. were always looking for opportunity there, but it just didn't open up. >> in december 2001 you were given permission by the chinese authorities to launch a cable tv channel in china, weren't you? >> endless negotiations. we finally got permission to do this, which turned out to be a

mentor and channel in a small cantonese speaking section in china. >> from the foothold, you've done quite well in china, haven't you? from that small foothold, you've advanced your commercial interest in china's? >> now. >> okay. we have whatever was there, losing money, i mean, entered into a joint venture which we're in the minority with shanghai media. that's about a year or two old. >> move forward to the 2001 election year. according to mr. campbell diary,

volume three, page 439 -- >> i'm sorry, what year? >> this is a conversation, or rather a diarrhea actually the 30th of october, 2000. volume three, page 439. >> yes. >> the entry reads, the bottom of the page, very bottom of the page, tb, murdoch and irwin, and mr. campbell is glossing that, murdoch advisor. he had asked him outright whether they're going. murdock said the taurus were unelectable and that was that. is this a faithful account of what happened, mr. murdoch's? >> i have no memory of it at

all. i'm sorry, i can't help you. >> might you have said that the tories were unelectable? >> now i don't think so. -- now, i don't think so. >> by saying unelectable, you meant they were bound to lose i think. >> if i said that, you keep putting words into my mouth, mr. jay spent i hope i don't. i'm quoting mr. campbell they are. >> yes, but you're putting in other words, your and i've told you i have no memory of any such conversation. i'm not saying it's wrong, i just don't know the interpretation of what was said. >> thank you. it may be that mr. blair got to

know you quite well by now and did feel able to ask you out right whether you would back him. do you see that? >> i can't believe he was so direct as that. i met mr. blair, average two, maybe three times in a whole year. juno, there was a constant approach or daily text messages as happened with some newspapers. we had no such relationship. i to member taking of an afternoon, the checkers were spent a whole afternoon debating the euro. i remember what was said, and he didn't agree with me, and glad

to see that -- >> your grave concern was the united kingdom might enter the euro? >> my feeling about it, if you want to debate the euro, was that it was a great abdication of power over our enemies. >> not sure i do want to debate the euro, but what i do want just to establish out affairs to you, that that was your concern, wasn't it, that the united kingdom might enter the euro? >> yes, it was a purely intellectual point of view. >> march 2003 goal for -- gulf war, all 175 papers around the world which you owned backed the war, didn't they? >> it would include a lot of certain little papers, three

sheets which wouldn't have had a view. yes, we did support the war, as did most papers, including even "the new york times." >> some years after the events it was discovered that there were three telephone calls between you and mr. blair in march 2003 where the issue of the goal for must of been discussed. do you follow me, mr. murdoch's? >> well, it must've been at that time because it was such a big issue. i don't remember the calls. he might've even been calling me for my birthday. our position on the war had been very strongly well before that date. spinning the discussion --

>> he wouldn't have been calling me. >> the discussion could not have been about whether you're going to support them because as you rightly say, that support had already been given to the discussion not to be about something else, the version of mr. -- >> don't personalize it just to mr. blair, but to the war. >> mr. warmth was a version and a book called the end of the party, page 160, was that you -- >> who is he? >> he is a political commentat commentator. but innocent it doesn't matter really what he said. actually whether you agree with this point. that you and mr. blair were devising the best strategy for attacking president chirac. do you think that is what was discussed during these calls? >> i doubt it very much. >> why, mr. murdoch?

why? >> i don't think mr. blair would come to me for advice on a matter like that. >> why not? because -- >> why would he? he is surely about talking to me about his current relations with france. it was well known that the sun was pretty rude about the french from time to time. >> the articles in the sun about this time describe president chirac as the french worm and a cheap car to put price before principle. does that have anything to do with you? >> now. >> the 2005 election, mr. murdoch, the last of blair's victories, did you make it a condition of support for the labour party that the government hold a referendum on the new

e.u. constitution? >> now we did make any conditions but we certain express the opinions strongly that the e.u. constitution should be put to the people. and i don't think we were looking at that. as it happened, it didn't have to be because it depended on anonymity between all the countries and other countries, at least one, but voted against it. so the point was to have a referendum. >> in the end, as you rightly say, there was a referendum for the reasons you have given. but what is said in another book by mr. richards this time that mr. blair had -- held regular talks with seltzer including talks on that issue. and mr. stelzer would have been

communicating your views, is that right or not? >> now. -- no. he had his own views. >> but in no sense was he communicating your views then to the prime minister? >> no. you don't know whether he he was a wasn't. >> that's the point. speak it would be something you would talk to him about. >> if i've seen a lot of him -- >> that's the point. if you have already spoken very, very highly of them, that's the sort of thing you might very well have discussed with them. >> yes. yes, sir. >> my only point was that he was not there to carry a message from me. >> i understand. i'm sure doctor irwin stelter

would have his own ideas on this and every other topic. but in one sense he would know you're thinking and should be able to discuss that with mr. blair, wouldn't he? >> probably coming this. he was actually closer to mr. andrew neil then he was to me. >> mr. blair in 2007, did you have a view as to who should succeed him? >> i thought the matter was settled. >> according to mr. blair's biography and journey page 655, a couple sentences but then he says turn it up, mr. blair is the is no contest with

leadership, he could've stirred for the murdoch papers, just wrote them off. do you remember doing that? >> no. that's quite untrue but i met him a couple times and i like him. >> but you didn't write a -- >> i didn't know he was up for the job. or possible contender. >> your relations with mr. brown, until the 30th of september, 2009, which is when "the sun" as it were dropped in and support the conservatives were quite warm. >> my personal relationship with mr. brown was always warm. before he became prime minister and after. and i regret that after "the sun" came at him, not so true,

although i only hope it can't be repeated. >> there may be a number of reasons why your personal relationship could, but one obvious one perhaps was your common presbyterian upbringing, is that right? >> yes. >> can we see if we can possibly explain one thing you mention. we know that you stated checkers of the weekend of the sixth and seventh of october, 2007, or at least they are on one of those days. do you remember that? >> is that the pajama party weekend? [laughter] >> no. we are coming to the. that's the 14th of june, 2008. >> i do remember being once, at

least but i think only once. >> at checkers as a guest of mr. and mrs. brown got and certain other people there that i remember. the first thing i met jk rowling's, was a close friend, at least of mrs. brown. >> do you any discussion with mr. brown about whether there should be a snap election? >> no. >> were you aware of -- >> let me say i don't remember. >> there is evidence somewhere, i think him -- >> if any a politician why my opinion on those major matters, then had to read editorial from "the sun."

>> mr. warmsley says the decision to call off the snap election was taken before the sixth of october. so if he is right you couldn't have discussed it with the browns. >> this as i did spent others have suggested it, but we have heard your evidence on the topic, mr. murdoch. i'm not going to present at any further. can i move forward with mr. brown? june 2008, we can take just one month, the documents demonstrate that you at dinner with mr. brown on the sixth of june and your respective wives were present to do you accept that? >> yes. >> fourteenth of june was the famous slumber party where i don't believe you were present spent i think they were just a bunch of women.

complaining about their husbands probably. >> fifteenth of june you have -- you were mr. brown's dinner guests with president bush, do you member that? >> yes. that was a large party spent about 30 of 40 people there? >> yes. i'm sure there were other people there from the press. >> and then the 16th of june, mr. brown attends your annual party speakers yes, i think so. most people do. >> and were you involved in any way in the timing of the decision to support the party on 31st of september, 1989? >> no, i was not consulted as to the exact timing. we certainly had talks over a

period. mrs. james, mrs. brooks, no doubt others that we felt this government was making a lot of mistakes and that we had a long period of labour rule. it was time for a change. >> and you along with many others were working out that mr. brown would likely lose the next election? >> no. i didn't know. >> well, mr. murdoch, one can't know because no one can read the future. spank you are asking me -- >> your best guess, mr. murdoch, along with any others, and informed guess that mr. brown was going to lose, wasn't it? >> the election was a long way away. i had no idea. you know, as many people have

said, a long time in politics -- [inaudible] >> can i just deal with one piece of evidence, the inquiry received from mr. mckinsey. mr. mckinsey told us that mr. brown spoke to you on the phone. this was on or shortly after the 30th of september, 2009, and he, mr. brown, said to have brought -- [inaudible] for 20 minutes, is that true or not? >> i'm afraid, i'm very happy to think about the conversation, but mr. mckinsey might have talked to about it over dinner. i occasionally see him. that was a very colorful occasion. mr. brown did call me, and said

rupert, do you know what's going on here? and i said, what do you mean? he said, well, "the sun" and what it's doing, how it came o out. and i did, i'm not aware of, i was not warned of the exact timing. i'm not aware of what they're saying, i'm a long while away. but i'm sorry to tell you, gordon, we have come to the conclusion that we will support a change of government when there is an election. when there is another election. and he said, and i must stress, no voices were raised. we were talking more quietly than you and i are now. he said, well, your company has

made, declared war on my government, and we have no alternative but to make war on your company. and i said i'm sorry about that, gordon. thank you for calling. end of subject. >> how could mr. brown had declared war on your company? >> i don't know. i don't think he -- he frankly, he could have, i don't know.

>> more commissions, god knows there's plenty of commissions around us now. so that was it. later i think the hacker scandal broke, made totally outrageous statement, which he had to know was wrong. and when he called as a criminal organization. and because he said we had hacked into his personal medical records. when he knew very well how "the sun" had found out about his son, the condition of his son, which was very sad.

a father in the hospital in a similar position call those, told us and said, there's some charity or research on this and so on, and mrs. brooks immediately snatched it from the news alerts and said, let me handle this. and she called mrs. brown and said, look, this is going to be out, you should be careful. how would you like it handled? and one or several days later we published the story, and four or five days later mr. brown wrote a personal letter to mrs. brooks, thanking her for her sensitivity and the way she handled the story. i believe that letter is in the hands of the police.

>> mr. murdoch, you had no knowledge of the involvement in the events you just described. you presume they're communicating, what mrs. brooks has told you, is that correct of? >> on her handling of the story, and, indeed, i have since had, sometime ago, personal contract -- contact with mrs. brown, she was very friendly, and yes, that part of the story. i'm sure there's plenty of evidence that she took it out of the news list and said let me handle that, but other people were present. there were people in the newsroom who would have known that would have received the call from the hospital.

i haven't seen the letter. but no doubt you will have a chance to do that. >> may i go back just -- >> we are jumping some of your. >> it's fun, mr. murdoch, but can i go back to the declaration of war. could it be said that the way mr. brown might have carried out his threat, the way you interpreted it, was that you would bid for the remaining shares in bskyb, mr. brown might place obstacles in your way? >> never thought about it. we taken advice on that. it's something that goes on i guess every day.

somewhere in the markets in the world, controlling shareholders, the outside shareholders. it's not a matter for regulation. in most countries, or any country i am aware of. it was turned into a political issue in this country by our newspaper enemies, or i should say competitors. but it's possible of course for the minister to step in. i presume in any market move. to ofcom or the competition commission, or whatever, but we never thought of that. i mean, i'm being quite honest

with you, that we be held up for a couple of months in europe but there was just nothing here. in fact, we were waved through in europe in two weeks. >> can i just understand the chronology, mr. murdoch, that by the 30th of september, 2009, had there been keen in turn consideration with a news corp. regarding the acquisition of the remaining shares in bskyb -- >> there was certainly a desire there for a long time. i remember when mr. kerry returned to the company after many years. the first thing he said to me was, we should cleanup the situation at the sky, or bskyb.

you know, we started this company and it was a long-standing ambition. with hindsight, i regret that i ever agreed to an ipo. i admit there were different times, probably manager pressures. >> just wonder though, mr. murdoch, whether someone of your thinking that mr. brown had said we will declare war on your company that you interpreted that being the very least the possibility of obstacles been placed in a way of your bid for the many shares of bskyb. [inaudible] >> no.

[inaudible] >> yes, certainly. >> i think he was digesting we just break, nothing more spent i hope we can get through today. >> well, mr. murdoch, i'm concerned about -- >> it's up to you spend i'm concerned over all of out the lens of this evidence, and if we plowed through these to the afternoon, how cogently my questions will be and how your answers might be. i know how much i've got left. my preference would be to go just about 45 minutes in the afternoon, and then complete in about two or three hours in the morning. >> can i suggest that during the course of the next hour you have a word with those who are advising, have a word with them as well?

i'm conscious that i do not want to put excessive pressure on you, and i don't want to put excessive pressure on the minister. >> thank you. >> all right. you can return to that. thank you very much. 2:00. >> the leveson inquiry into british phone hacking taking their lunch break right now. we will continue with live coverage in about an hour. mr. murdoch will return for further questioning tomorrow also starting at five eastern. we are planning live coverage of that here on c-span2. associated press reporting this morning that adam smith, the central advice to olympics minister jeremy hunt has resigned over his role in news corporation's attempted takeover satellite broadcaster bskyb. he said today he is resigning because he created a perception

that news corporation had to close a relationship, quoted in court with the department for culture, media and sport. that is run by mr. hunt. is role came to light when e-mails were released yesterday to the leveson inquiry. mr. hunt has insisted he has done nothing wrong. in fact, he is making a statement right now to the house of commons. we joined in progress. >> of the man i know to be of the most utmost integrity. [shouting] >> since the previous government, mr. speaker, new a phone hawking and illegal practice for years but failed to take any practice. i asked the secretary to contrast his action with their in action? >> but we are 13 years. we are to information commission report. would one select committee report. where two people sent to prison. the party opposite actually nothing, which is why it is totally inappropriate or them to be suggesting that this is somehow a government problem when it is an issue that affects

the whole political process. and that's why we need to be working together to sort it out. >> paul farrelly. >> they will appreciate the main concerns about the fallout of the phone hacking affair, how widely news international tentacles reached since police and come to bskyb launched its bid in june 20 in the andy coulson resigned in january 2011. so irrespective of when he took responsibility for the victim could the second to stake out a house whether mr. kohl site into mutations with him or dcms advisors in any shape or form about news corp.'s interest in bskyb while mr. coulson was still the prime minister? >> i had no communication or consultation with mr. coulson about this good when i was responsible for it. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to ask my right honorable friend, who i also have seen serve this house with great privilege --

[shouting] could you clarify the role that the independent regulators oversee and ofcom play in this process? >> well, my reason to involve the osd and ofcom in this process to a much greater extent than is required to do under the enterprise act of 2002 was precisely because i wanted to address the concerns that members of the south and the public might have about me prejudging this issue. so at every stage i took for major decisions, each of those decisions were not the decisions that news corp. wanted, and on every ruling that i made i carefully consider that independent advice, and after considering it i followed it. >> mr. tony lloyd? >> printed the cultural secretary didn't answer my right honorable friend's question. this is important. did he know of -- and mr. michel

entity now the consequences of those exchanges? >> did he know anything? >> that information is an important message set out in a statement made by adam smith when he resigned. i knew -- [shouting] >> order. let's calm down. lets you the answer. >> i knew about his conduct it does authorize. he was authorized to be the point of contact between my department and news corporation. what i didn't know was, i did know the communicate and themselves, the first time i saw them was yesterday nor did another volume of those communications or the tone of those communications. >> mr. speaker, can the secretary of state explain how referring to bskyb deal to the competition commission makes him a cheerleader for the murdoch empire? >> my honorable friend makes the

very most important point in this whole process. if you look at the evidence, the decisions i actually made, it is clear that at every stage of action made the decision that news corporation did not welcome including the final decision, which was to ask whether i should take account of the milly dowler revelations which is what precipitated the collapse of the entire bid. >> the secretary of state didn't need to speak because it's right in man was cheating on the information that he needed. >> here, here. >> this is what i'm telling the house today. those conversations were inappropriate, but they didn't affect my decision to the evidence of the is and the decisions that actually took, which were for decisions that james murdoch did not want. >> karen bradley. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can he tell the house what measures he would like in place in process over and above all is

necessary to ensure the process was fair, transparent and open? >> i will absolutely -- most important thing was that when james murdoch offered undertakings in blue of a referral to the competition, which it is his right to do, and my duty to consider, instead of accepting those undertakings, which i was completely entitled to do legally, i said that i would not do so until a proper advice off, and the ot as to whether it be appropriate to do so. and backup advice i considered it carefully and i followed it. that is not required by the law but i chose to do that because of my commitment to the integrity of the process. >> mr. speaker, why was a special adviser nominated in the department? if this had been so important that the secretary was saying, why would a special adviser nominated? >> his role was agreed by the secretary.

but let me say was the only person. we had contacts on all sorts of levels, particularly -- [shouting] i can explain to the house, when you have complex undertakings in a huge merger, it is a very, very complex process. that are inevitably a range of contacts. as i say, i have tried to as transfer as possible in all those contacts, and i think in this particular case the contacts overstepped the mark, which is why adam smith has decided to resign. but let me just say to the honorable gentleman that adam smith, in his statement said that whilst it was part of my roll to keep news corporation and forgot to bskyb bid process, the contact and extent of my contact was done without authorization from the secretary of state. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the secretary of state -- i have

grown to respect as a model professional. [shouting] >> here, here. >> here, here. >> he knew, he knew that the bskyb deal was controversial when the issue was moved to his department. can he explain what measures he took to ensure that the bid process was fair, transparent and open? >> well, i have talked at length about the role of independent regulars, but let me make this response to my honorable friend. one of the points about getting that independent advice from ofcom and the oft was that i published what they advised me to do before i made my decision. so that when i announced my decision, the whole country could see whether i've acted in accordance with independent advice, which i did at every stage. and that is why this house can be reassured, the country can be

reassured, that is extremely difficult bid was conducted with scruples and partiality. >> gregory campbell. [inaudible] does he not accept that either the secretary of state followed due process or not, if you follow due process he should be here today. if he is guilty or be seems he did not follow due process didn't there should be due humility. why is it is doing neither? >> with respect to the honorable gentleman's due process in the situation means i take my decision objectively, impartially, setting aside my own prejudices. and that is exactly what i did. >> can the secretary of state assure people in my constituency and throughout the country at all times in the process he acted with impartiality and integrity?

>> well, i actually did come and am grateful to my honorable friend for saying that. but we are very keen, all these processes don't tell them the lesson that the appearance of impartiality is also their important. that's why today the prime minister has asked the cabinet secretary to write to all departments clarifying the rigorous procedures the department should have in place for handling all cases of a quasi-judicial major. and said that it is vital in dealing with these cases all contacts by ministers officials and special advisors are carefully controlled and properly recorded so that the into tended integrity and impartiality of the process is upheld and just as important, seem to be upheld. >> jayme reed. [inaudible] the question is been estimate does he agree with the prime minister that the next greatest scandal in politics is lobbying? >> well, i think forewarned, and

-- [laughter] welcome in this process we have seen the role of one corporate affairs adviser, and i think it's right. that's why this government is conducting your view right on the moment to look at the role of lobbyists and to make sure that we do have proper transparency in the entire process. >> mr. ian stewart. >> can the secretary of state comment on the allegation that he went to see swan lake by days after reporters speaking to mr. michel. >> it's one of the e-mails suggested that he is caught me just before i went to see swan lake. i went to see swan lake five days later i think that's why it's very important that we are all the evidence before making any judgment on the basis of these e-mails. >> mr. speaker, the secretary of state said yesterday and has repeated today that he has written to lord justice leveson

asking to accelerate when he gives his evidence. given there were their others implicated in the revelations from yesterday, including mr. sam and scotland, -- [inaudible] >> i do think there are questions for politicians for all parties to answer in this process. we have an independent judicial review and it is the lord justice leveson to decide the timing. but i think it's very important in this process that all parties engage constructively because at least, the right honorable lady opposite, this is actually an opportunity to solve the problem that has bedeviled politics for a very long time. and that's what i think constructive engagement with this process, not just a bandwagon so is the forward. >> mr. david rutley. >> will my right honorable friend confronted the house the process he described was approved by the permanent

secretary? >> i can confirm the cabinet secretary was closely involved in this very, very important decision at every stage of the process. and he particularly gave me some advice about how to make sure that the process was handled objectively and fairly, and seem to be handled objectively and fairly. >> on the 23rd gender, 2011, as a former minister was responsible for competition policy myself, i advised him in this house to hand over this decision to somebody else because of his own role, previous role with the bskyb and the murdochs. isn't the fact that he didn't do that then and the fact that he used adam smith as his invisible hand -- [laughter] , two monumental errors of judgment? >> if i use absent as my invisible hand, why did i say

for decision were completely against what news corporation wanted? you know, the reality is, this was a quasi judicial process which i took enormous trouble to make sure it was before the objectively and fairly. and i have explained many times the steps i took to do that. >> does the secretary of state agree with me that mr. michel's view, ago, saw no problem with the bid in the bid msha defense -- fanciful world this man appears to be living in? >> certainly the evidence would suggest that was also an exaggeration. that's why we must hear all the evidence submitted to the leveson inquiry from all sides, and allowed lord justice leveson, who is truly independent in this process, no political bandwagon to jump, allows him to come to is considered conclusions. >> in my experience, secretaries of state speak more to the political adviser than their own ministers or members of their

own families. therefore, the house is being -- either the relationship between the secretary of state and adam smith was so dysfunctional that the suggest it was unaware of the extent and nature of the communication between adam smith and news corp. now or that it was a good relationship in which case the secretary of state must as the court can't exist take force possibility for the conduct of his political adviser. >> i just point the honorable gentleman to it at the smith himself said this morning. he said the content and extent of my contact was done without authorization from the secretary of state. >> the secretary of state -- [inaudible] that matches with the gap of some of the evidence we've heardcome and show highlights exactly we should do it.

[inaudible] >> i think the honorable gentleman is absolutely right, because this is a huge opportunity to get things right. we have heard some evidence which has clearly got some flaws in it, and i think anyone looking at the sensibly and objectively would say that we need to hear all the evidence and not jump to conclusions. [inaudible] i am happy, yes go i'm happy to identify all communications with alex salmond's office. i believe we publish all with relation to the tip i will look into that matter. >> mr. peter bone. >> mr. speaker,. [inaudible] the manner in which he is answering the question to the on thing is the allegation for the honorable lady opposite that a statement department was leaked in advance. or the secretary of state

clinton up and said that is absolutely untrue? >> well, there are allegations in an e-mail that that did not happen, and i am not able to come to the house today and say what the truth was or otherwise of the account of the conversation made by fred michel which we know in other instances contains a number of exaggerations. but that's exactly what we've got lord justice leveson looking into this whole matter, as someone independent, a judge, a high court judge who will get to the bottom of it. >> the secretary of state has said that he did not know of the content of the communicate his between his special adviser and bskyb. but he did note that there happening and he did assure this house that he would publish all the communicate between his department and bskyb. why were those communications that he did know of, even though

he says he did know the content, and weather conditions gushed that they can indication between the prime minister after his meeting that we know the premise of did discuss the bid on the 23rd of december, and the prime minister act in a transparent manner by communicating what he had said to his department on the 23rd of december or thereafter, either in person to the secretary of state or the means of his officials or advisers? >> the prime minister has not commuted to me any communications he has had because he was not responsible for this bid. i was solely responsible for this bid. with respect to the communicate should, i didn't know the content of the medications until yesterday when i saw them, nor did i know the volume of communications. i knew that adam smith was authorized to be one of a number of contact points within my department, but it is clear having seen those communicate

should that the volume and content was inappropriate. but what is significant to this bid is that they did not in any way at all affect my decisions. and the evidence for that is very simple, if the decisions that i took were not the decisions that news corporation wanted. >> the secretary of state is a man of honor and substance. >> here, here. >> i have just learned, i just learned that rupert murdoch has just told the leveson inquiry that the former prime minister, telephoned him and told him he had declared war on him. when he learned "the sun" newspaper had switched sides to the conservatives. does the secretary of state, does the secretary of state face of the party opposite are using this as a self-serving opportunity to bash the news international?

[shouting] >> yes. [inaudible] >> you are out. >> mr. speaker, in the intimate relationship tween any special adviser and the secretary of state, is he seriously contending that he didn't know the content and the volume that was being transmitted? is he really saying that? and why didn't he release all the contact when he promised to do so? >> i did know about the volume of content of those text messages until yesterday. i have said that. my special adviser to my former special adviser has said that he did have those communicate and without authorization from an. but they are now published and that's what we taken the action we have. >> i don't know him but i do know the suggested is a man of integrity and honesty. >> here, here.

>> so can we make it crystal clear whether he recognize any of the conversations that were specific to him in mr. michel's e-mails? >> mr. michel has acknowledged that in the 54 e-mails in which he refers to conversations with me, in fact he didn't have any all. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in the process, why didn't the secretary of state manages special adviser properly to ensure his office acted with integrity? >> as a matter of great regret to me of what happened happened. but if i may say, the party opposite also has lessons to learn about managing special advisors when they were in office. >> thank you, mr. speaker. sentence first, verdict after but it is not the principle of english law. it is not the principle of public law but it is certainly not a principle the tories have

served in this house. >> does my right honorable friend share my disappointment with the opportunism we've heard from the right honorable lady today, demonstrated contempt for due process, the precise form of content of which he himself is accused? >> my ibook friend makes an excellent point, and let me just remind him of what lord justice, what lord justice leveson said this morning. he said, i do not seek to constrain parliament, but it seems to me the better course is to allow this inquiry to proce proceed. >> it does sort of seems strange that the secretary brings in a special adviser to the center of, on a very difficult contract or situation, and actually doesn't know what he's doing. ghana ask the suggested a very simple question? why did the permanent secretary decide that the content --

[inaudible] >> adam smith was the power of the process authorized him but limited as. he wasn't the only point of contact or through a large number of points of contact, but he was one other point of contact. you need to do that. we set up a process and that was approved by the permanent secretary. and we also put in place a large number of safeguards to make sure that my decisions were taken objectively, and seem to be taken objectively. i have to say to the honorable gentleman that there is no evidence whatsoever, if you look at my actual decisions, that any of those conversations had any influence on them whatsoever. >> thank you, mr. speaker. congratulate the secretary of state on his statement. because is another case under this government we have seen action on phone hacking, action with the leveson inquiry, action

on immediate regulation reforms, and importantly the secretary of state tells us no action in favor of the murdoch empire are any decisions he made? that's enough further agree that all the action of the previous government -- [inaudible] [shouting] >> that is absolutely right and that is why we are trying to draw a line as to what happened under previous governments of all colors, and try and sort is propped up and i think it's time the honorable members opposite to be responsible at to be. because this is an opportunity to do something about this problem and we're trying to do so honestly and conscientiously. >> i think the more this government backbenchers claim that the sector as it is a man of integrity, the less the public is likely to believe them. mr. speaker, my honorable friend and my honorable friend asked

about his suggestion it was, who suggestion it was that a special adviser -- >> order. let me say to the honorable gentleman, he shouldn't impugn the integrity. order, order. order. i didn't require any assistance from any government backbenchers i'm perfectly cable of handling this matter, so. that's what i'm doing and they should be quiet. the honorable gentleman asked a question that i will gentlemen now should ask his question but without -- is ask the question. >> thank you, mr. speaker. to answer the question, we need to know, we need to know who suggestion it was that adam smith should be appointed contact for news corporation? and why not the civil servant? >> we will look into all the processes and we will know and we're very happy to learn lessons about the way this was structured. but let me, let me say to the

honorable gentleman that he can pick on one element of what happened, but he shouldn't ignore the big picture. the big picture was that we put a huge lock in the process to make sure that my decisions were impartial and seem to be impartial and that was involved of independent regulars, something we didn't have to do but we chose to do. and that in the end is what demonstrates that my decisions were taken on the basis of objective evidence. >> thank you, mr. speaker. if they rush to judgment are not the party opposite in danger -- underwent the leveson process itself? >> i do wish that they would allow these issues to be considered in a calm manner, because they either very difficult issues. we need to get the right solutions. we on the side of the house on not saying that we got everything right in our party over the years. we are saying that actually there is a process of reform that needs to happen, there

affords a process of reform that protects freedom of expression which is the foundation of our democracy and want to work with all parties to sort this out. and that is the way to deal with this issue, not the rank opportunism that i'm afraid we are seeing. >> mr. andrew slaughter. >> he didn't take independent advice, so he didn't always act in mr. murdochs enters sound rather lengthy he is following his own opposite advice to murdoch which is to find some political cover that he had already taken. >> i do take the independent advice, independent advice was this should be referred to the competition commission. and i immediately did, as i'm recorded in the legal process, i wrote to them and said i am reminded to refer this to the competition commission. they then have the right to offer undertakings in blue. and i have a duty to consider those undertakings.

and what i did was and to write to the independent regulars again, a can to get their opinion before i took any further decision. so we have been scrupulously fair in this entire process. the proof of the pudding is with the decisions that news corporation did not like. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i believe the success of the olympics is an outstanding secretary of state. [inaudible] [shouting] will my right honorable friend not agree that is wrong to jump on the polka bandwagon before knowing the full facts? [shouting] >> absolutely right, which is what i'm looking forward to getting my full evidence to the leveson inquiry so that i can set the record straight on a number of points. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the secretary of state has had three opportunities -- [inaudible] >> order. the trouble with the honorable

gentleman is he is as excitable as he is as good-natured. is a very amiable fellow but we don't need the honorable gentleman's advice on decorah. he should call himself and take whatever tablets are required. >> thank you, mr. speaker. [shouting] [laughter] >> the secretary of state has had three opportunities to answer the question about why adam smith was appointed to be the lead contact to let me give him a fourth opportunity to finally stand up and give some information to this house, unlike last year when you supposed to release documents to this house. >> all the rules in the process were agreed by the permanent secretary. i don't know what greater level of independence that he wants in order that decision to let me tell him, we could not have been more transparent and more determined to make sure that the whole process was done fairly.

now, we know from what happened yesterday that everything did not go ride in this process, and that's why, unfortunately, adam smith has chosen to resign because some of his contacts -- spent british culture minister jeremy hunt answering questions before the british house of commons regarding his involvement in news corporation's attempted takeover of satellite broadcaster bskyb. ..

i believe it is important to update the house on actions that are being taken as a result of evidence released yesterday. 273 days into a process that will last until october. this is not the time to jump on the political bandwagon. what the public wants to hear is not the right hon. gentleman legal not my views but of lord justice leveson when he brought in all the evidence. i do think it is right to set the record straight on a number of issues in the light of evidence heard by the inquiry. specifically on the merger of news corp. with sskypeb.

i strictly followed too process. seeking the advice of independent regulators. something that didn't have to do and after careful consideration acting on their advice. i have published all advice and received with correspondents between myself and news corp. including details of all meetings i held in relation to this process. as part of this process my officials and i have to engage with news corp. and its representatives as well as other interested parties, supporters and opponents of the merger. transcripts of conversations and text published yesterday between my special adviser adam smith and a news corp. representative, to indicate there was a channel

for with nor news corp. were able to influence my decision sir. this is categorically not the case. >> the house must calm down. the statement must be heard. there will be a full opportunity for questioning of the secretary of state which he will expect. that is right and proper. also is right and proper that statements should be heard with courtesy. however, the volume and tone of those communications were clearly not appropriate in a quasi judicial process and adam smith has resigned as my specialist. [shouting] >> although adam smith has said he overstepped the mark on this occasion i want to set on record that i believe he did so and

intentionally. i did not believe he was doing anything more than giving advice on process. i believe someone of integrity and decency and it is a matter of huge regret to me that this is happening. i only saw the transcripts of these communications yesterday. they did not influence my decision in any way at all. i insisted on hearing it by independent regulators at every stage of the process. i will give my full record of events when i give evidence to lord justice leveson but i would like to resolve this issue as soon as possible which is why i have written to lord justice leveson asking of my parents can be brought forward. i am totally confident that when i present my evidence the public will see that i conducted this progress with scrupulous

fairness throughout. >> remarks earlier today from british culture minister jerry hunt. part of his appearance before the british house of commons. we recorded his full statement and we will have it later on the c-span network. go to our web site to find out when that airs. in the meantime and as you heard from mr. hunt, adam smith who is his special advisor has resigned over his role in news corp.'s attempted takeover of beskyb. the creative perception that news corp. had close relationships with the department of culture, media and sports run by mr. hunt. news corp. international chair chief executive rupert murdoch in the first of two days of questioning, today and tomorrow. investigating media ethics and practices. here's mr. murdoch's testimony from earlier today.

>> on monday afternoon, i said this -- i understand the very real public interests in the issues that will be ventilated by the evidence. are also recognize the freedom that permits what is said to be discussed and the subject of comments in whatever way saw fit and i shall be interested in how is covered. for my part i shall approach the relationship for the press and politicians from entirely nonpartisan judicial perspective. that is the reason i was given this. i would hope that this approach will be made clear. when i said those words i had in mind some of the evidence that i anticipated we would hear, including that which we did in fact here yesterday.

in light of the reaction and considerable commentary last night and this morning, it is appropriate for me to say a little more. this necessarily involves explaining something of the judicial process. i understand entirely the reason the reactions to the evidence yesterday. in particular e-mails about which mr. murdoch was asked. i am acutely aware from considerable experience documents such as these cannot always be taken at face value and frequently bear more than one interpretation. i am absolutely not taking sides or expressing any opinions but i am prepared to say that it is important to hear every side of the story before drawing conclusions. in due course we will hear all

the relevant evidence from all the relevant witnesses and when i report i will then make the findings that are necessary when we can fulfil the terms of reference the prime minister set forward. in the meantime although i have seen requests for other inquiries and other investigations it seems to me that the better course is to allowed this inquiry to proceed. when it is concluded there will doubtless be opportunities for consideration to be given to any further investigation that is then considered necessary. >> witness today, rupert murdoch. >> thank you. i am very conscious that the material which mr. murdoch

provided come in different branches and having regard to the experience we have seen with some witnesses it will be helpful if you are moving from bundle to bundle if someone could help him do that. >> i swear by almighty god that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> your full name, mr. murdoch. >> keith rupert murdoch. >> >> reporter: does this procedure testimony? >> as i said to a number of other witnesses, i am very

grateful for the obvious care that you have taken in preparation of your evidence and the material you placed before the inquiry and i want to record that. >> thank you. you are the chairman and chief executive officer of news corp. company incorporated in the united states. total assets, $60 billion, approximately 8% of news corp. revenues generated in the united kingdom, 60% by news international. >> correct. >> if anyone wants greater detail look to your witness statements published in due course. would it be fair to said that you have been following british politics for 50 years?

>> i suppose so. with varying intensity. >> you say you welcome this inquiry. it follows that rumors that you have not forgiven mr. cameron for setting up are untrue? is that right? >> did i say that? in my witness statement? >> use it in your witness statement you welcome this. according to rumors the personal which are presumably and true, you have not forgiven him for setting up -- >> not true. >> why do you say there is the need for this inquiry? >> the need is fairly obvious. there are many of the uses weaken going to in time.

the state of the media in this country is of vital interest to all its citizens. i welcome the opportunity to put certain myths to bed. >> to the abuses go further than the issue of phone hacking? >> they go further. >> we will come back to that. let's go into your business strategies. three main points. you have an instinct for acquiring businesses you believe will be successful. secondly, more importantly you

have a long-term perspective and the d flyer for understanding the possibilities of technology. have i got that right? >> barry slight amendments. my interests whether intuitive or otherwise have been confronted by the media. not just any business. long-term you are absolutely right. just about everything i have done in terms of managing the company. particularly at the moment. sometimes i have been right and sometimes i have been wrong at great cost. >> let me ask about your political philosophy. would it be fair to say a great

admirer of baron and stature and what she has done? >> i became that after she was elected. i remain a great admirer. >> she was in the 1979 election, presumably your support for margaret thatcher in your mind before that election. would that be right? >> all news purpose is much the same. we just came through the most terrible winter of discontent disruptions to the whole society and we have all been changed. >> i will put one quote to you from you. an interview by mr. williams

shortcroft in time magazine on 25 october 1999. this is use speaking. what does libertarian been? as much individual responsibility as possible, is little government as possible, as few rules as possible. i'm not saying it should be taken to the absolute limit. the gist of that, few rules but not no rules. >> there are necessary rules in a working society. but they can be overdone. >> recent tweets of yours betray a hostile approach to right wingers. 2 you were referring to? >> don't take my treatise too seriously. a i was really saying the extremists on both sides were piling in on me.

>> you referred to myths about you, mr. murdoch. your feeling that there is a lot of mythology around and about you which needs to be debunked. >> yes. >> we will see how we get on in the course of today. and what the plan is where we are going to focus on the political approach, chronological. otherwise we lose track of where we are. then your phone hacking and we will look at some broader questions. are you content with that? >> yes indeed. >> the acquisition of the sunday times which is a separate case which i need to cover which your witness statement addresses. today's papers at the end of

1980, didn't you? >> yes. perhaps. >> we will forget how many. at that stage you having acquired news of the world you had 30% in the u.k.. is that correct. >> "the sun" must have been a more sudden success than i thought to have reached 30% in ten years. >> the deadline when it was going to take place with march of 1981. by way of background, the effective state to create an interesting -- was obliged by

statues to refer the case to the monopoly and merger commission, each time, was not economic and the case was one of -- >> i invite you to look at -- >> we put in to prove he said that. and indeed that thompson -- [talking over each other] >> whether the times and "the sunday times"'s economic concerns may be an issue. so we look at documents evidencing a lunge at checkers on the fourth of january 1981, k r f 14 which may well be bundled.

you will see mr. ginham noted this on the fifth of january of 1981. zero 1626, the prime minister, the salient points of your lunge with rupert murdoch in line with your wishes it hasch with rupert murdoch in line with your wishes it has not gone outside number 10 -- it did not come out until march of this year. did you understand that? >> yes. >> according to the history of the times, the murdoch years you had no recollection of this lunch. >> i still don't. i accept mr. ginham's minutes,

detailed minutes which sound to me to be correct. >> it was -- >> should ask mrs. thatcher. >> according to mr. ginham's notes, it was quite an infamous occasion if you look at the numbers of people there. the prime minister, thatcher and mr. ginham and you and the meeting was at your request. do you see that? >> yes. >> you don't mind if i keith you about it but when you told the select committee last year that you wished politicians would leave you alone and you weren't referring to this meeting.

what we see -- >> i think this meeting was from the chief executive of the company. the likelihood of a change of ownership. >> this is thatcher new that was probable and might have slowed these two. she couldn't sell them. there are two purposees. one was to greet mrs. thatcher and give her your thoughts about what was described here as the embryonic developing reason administration. you see that in paragraph 2? >> i think it shows in this conversation some time--gossiping about australia

and american politics. >> the preview, we put it this way. president-elect reagan and baroness thatcher and you were on the same page politically, weren't you? >> i guess i would say that. this was just before his inauguration. >> is it part of the purpose of this meeting to talk almost psychologically to demonstrate to mrs. thatcher how much your, quote, one of us. was that part of your purpose? >> no.

>> you appreciated the importance of a face-to-face meeting which is why you requested it. is that right? >> yes. >> pass mr. bingham says -- >> the purpose was not to tell her about president reagan. >> the main purpose of mr. murdoch's visit to the prime minister on your bid to the newspaper, you explain to her what your bid amounted to in financial terms and you treated her to sins speculation about who else had bid. is that fair? >> that was -- thompson told me to announce bids like that. it was always -- >> why was it important to you that mrs. thatcher understand the nature and quality of your

bid? >> as i said, this was a movement of the great institution which under threat of closure, it was right that she said no. what was at stake. >> we knew that any way. [talking over each other] >> it would be a great product -- and extent of the costs and risks. >> were you thinking to demonstrate to her that you were the right man to acquire these great papers? because you had the qualities and charisma to take the papers for randy equally importantly

you had the will to crush the unions. >> i didn't have the will to crush the unions. might have had the desire. that took several years. >> if we substitute desire for will are we in agreement? >> i don't think it was ever -- particularly. but yes. to get into the whole question. >> if you look at paragraph 10, mr. murdoch, 01629, you explain to mrs. thatcher that some fifty million of the resources could be at risk and the amounts could finish us. did you understand that? >> i don't remember saying that

but probably did. a gross underestimate. >> you talked about the financial position of the times but didn't mention financing position of "the sunday times". >> times newspapers. >> he meant that problem. was it your view that "the sunday times" was not economic? >> i didn't know. it had a great position on sunday but it is economics and staff and everything were trying to gather with the times. resulting in a big net loss. >> you look at "the sunday times" separately, s j wallburg advised that in 1982 and onward the paper would make a profit.

you knew that? >> i didn't see that. i don't remember seeing it. about contributing profit -- [talking over each other] >> okay. finally on this next paragraph, pages 01630 the prime minister thanked mr. murdoch for keeping her posted on his operations. she did no more than wish him well in his bid, taking the need to include arrangements and protecting the introduction of new technology. you were wished to point out that no express' favors were offered by mrs. thatcher. >> and none asked.

certainly would have recorded that. >> and you would not be so candid to ask directly james murdoch? >> endeavour asked the prime minister for anything. >> a far more sophisticated level. you seek to demonstrate to her what we knew anyway. you were precisely on the same page politically that you were one of us and the understanding was to the extent to which she might help she would. is that not fair? >> i did not expect any help from her nor did i ask for anybody. >> we you concerned at this stage you might not acquire the company? >> oh yes. it could have been quite a bit. >> or referral to the monopoly

merger commission. >> that didn't worry me in the least. the statement shows and there is backup material i hope will be put on the web along with this. >> it is all well mr. murdoch. did you thank mrs. thatcher for her lunch? >> i was a little slow in writing to thank her. >> another document shows this analysis was you would -- the favorite and internal analysis of the effective bids because of your policies as a manager and various other things. >> i have seen that letter. >> the next stage dealing with short lead undertakings were offered by you to look at those, they are in fr